Again, for the people who missed my previous comments, this is not something anyone may do out of their own accord. Someone may be sentenced to death by a judge in a court of law, and that's the end of it. You can disagree with apostasy from Islam being strictly prohibited under an Islamic state, and it may even be contrary to some "universal freedoms" formulated by people, but it's hardly murder.
By the same token, if I disagree with the killing of Osama bin Laden, I could call the soldiers who did it murderers.
He should be given time and help to resolve his doubts about Islam, but if he still refuses, he needs to be put to death. Although this is something that rarely happens, if at all. I have yet to see a real apostate who isn't a complete idiot or a liar.
Sorry for not giving this my full attention at first.
Yes, it's not mentioned, but if you know the history of the situation, you will see this revelation in perspective.
The Muslims had a treaty with the people of Medina. Unfortunately, some tribes broke the treaty a number of times, one of the people who broke the treaty was Ka'b ibn al Ashrak, who made a deal with the Meccan polytheists to fight against the Muslims, while making obscene poetry to defame Islam in Medina. Then this verse was revealed, which prohibited the Muslims from replying to any of this, binding them by the treaty, even though some of those non-Muslim tribes transgressed.
There's a lot more to it and the issue of inheritance really isn't what started this.
We're talking about the leader of the Islamic state here. After the death of the prophet (pbuh) the senior companions (including 'Ali) voted for who should be the new leader, and they voted unanimously for Abu Bakr. Then when Abu Bakr died, they voted for the next leader to be 'Omar. And after that, 'Uthman. It was only after the reign of 'Omar that the trouble started. A group of thugs from Egypt came to kill 'Uthman, although 'Uthman was very willing to reconsile with them, because they had some valid concerns. After that, most of the remaining companions urged 'Ali to become the new rules, but he repeatedly refused, as he didn't want to carry that burden. When he was finally convinced, there was a group of his followers, most prominent of whom was 'Abdullah bin Saba, who incited him against other companions, and then the battle of the camel happened. 'Ali later prosecuted this group in a harsh way. Those who remained formed Shiism, and now they proclaim that 'Ali should have been the leader all along, while we're not even doubting his leadership skills, we just think the 3 who went before him were a bit more suited to be leaders. The extremist shiites will say that this account of history is based completely on lies, but unfortunately for them, their main history source (Al Kaafi) is known to be pretty unreliable, and they acknowledge that.
As for Islam's "crimes" (I presume you meant crimes perpetrated by Muslims) why don't you name some mistreatment of women? Please, enlighten me. Last time I checked (and that's... every day), my wife loves me and doesn't think I mistreat her.
Sure, that's common practice in warfare, isn't it? That poet, Ka'b ibn al Ashraf, also chose to be a part of a war against the Muslims, as he made a treaty with the Meccan polytheists to this end. So his killing was also an act of warfare.
In any case, Islam strictly prohibit murder, rape, stealing and lying. Whether the perpetrator is a Muslim or not, whether the victim is Muslim or not. Warfare is an exception, and as I understand it Ghandi is no more. Every nation in the world allows killing hostile soldiers during war.
Of course Allah is omnipotent. But being able to create something that you cannot then un-create (or something) is something which is inherently illogical. This example, to me, compares to the Christian belief in Jesus as God-incarnate.
I didn't check every Islamic claim to be true, seeing as this is impractical. Before I became convinced that there has to be a creator, I already knew enough about Islam and other religions to have a reasonably well-founded opinion. But even as a fresh convert, I could easily switch to another religion, no peer pressure keeping me stuck in Islam... but in the following months, while I was learning my religion more thoroughly (specifically focusing on claims more than on dogma), I didn't. I just became more convinced that I had made the right decision. It was only after 11 months that I felt comfortable enough to go to the mosque, so I had plenty of time to reconsider. But I never did. 6 years later, I'm starting to understand Arabic pretty well, and it only makes me understand Islam better and appreciate it more.
Just because women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia (which I oppose) doesn't mean they aren't allowed to travel. They can travel just fine by taxi and by aeroplane.
I don't know about this particular issue, but... Really? Is the sun stationary? I was always under the impression that it was in an orbit around the center of the Milky Way. I dunno, could be wrong...
Not really. People may believe anything under an Islamic state, there's just an issue with people converting to Islam with the intention of fighting it from the inside. And the simplest way to deter people from doing so is such a law.
And again, laws don't necessarily mean prosecution, prosecution doesn't necessarily mean suficient evidence is provided which leads to a sentence, a sentence which can easily be circumvented in this case.
As for the beginning of the chapter, maybe you missed this verse (emphasis mine):
How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram?So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]
What does that tell you? That this is talking about a specific group of polytheists; those of Mecca who fought against the Muslims from the very beginning. It also mentions another group of polytheists, who made a treaty with the Muslims on the day of Hudaibiyyah, which they didn't break. It should also be mentioned that after the conquest of Mecca (which was completely without a fight), the Meccan polytheists were allowed to live in Mecca freely for 4 months, before the end of which the vast majority of them converted. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Instead of making silly assumptions which just make you look bad, you could always argue in a normal way. Anyway, I just did a quick search... I think you can understand that I have to divide my time to address all the comments in this thread, as I appear to be the only Muslim here...
I just wonder how many more quotes you need to understand that your presumption is wrong?
Do they not know that it is Allah who accepts repentance from His servants and receives charities and that it is Allah who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful?
Yes that would be a problem, but only if someone chooses to press charges though. Corporal punishment in an Islamic state doesn't necessarily come with strong enforcement and prosecution. It mostly serves as a deterrent inherently. Furthermore, if someone is determined guilty by an Islamic court of apostasy, the convicted has three days in jail to repent. If he becomes Muslim again, he's freed as if nothing happened. From this, follows that if he doesn't want to do that at all, he can just pretend to and flee the country after... Nobody will come after him
You could argue that this is harsh, but it is a deterrent for people who proclaim their Islam only to fight it from the inside and to try to deviate others from it. This is something that happened a number of times in the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Zoroastrianism is anything BUT a monotheist religion and Judaism doesn't have their original holy books. Those were long since lost. And Islam teaches me that those books were abrogated by the Quran, which by the way contains many stories of - and references to previous prophets.
You're begging the question... but I'll reply anyway.
Here's just one of the many quotes:
(He turned in mercy also) to the three who were left behind; (they felt guilty) to such a degree that the earth seemed constrained to them, for all its spaciousness, and their (very) souls seemed straitened to them,- and they perceived that there is no fleeing from Allah (and no refuge) but to Himself. Then He turned to them, that they might repent: for Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
In Islam we don't listen to any lunatic proclaiming stuff. There are sciences with defined methodologies, and there are scientists or scholars who debate religious issues, which is much like peer-reviewing in modern science.
For one, Islam is the purest form of monotheism. The Christian concept of a Trinity has always been a reason for me to reject it, not in the least because I don't find it logical. How can an omnipotent being create a rock, which is too heavy for him to lift, or live in a body which leaves him powerless? It's an inherent contradiction. Or is he the begotten son of god? There are so many issues with this too. Our holy book is still in its original form, leave cosmetic changes, of course. This can be verified by some of the remaining manuscripts of (what's probably) the original compilation. Its simplicity also appealed to me, as opposed to an excessive amount of metaphor, which is another issue I have with Christianity.
This just scratches the surface, of course. But you can find quite a few pretty famous converts who told their story online, some of which are rather interesting. If you're sincerely interested, I advise you to watch some of them.
You don't know what you are talking about at all. First of all, there is no such thing as "wahhabis". This is a term used as a pejorative by a group of Muslims (who have a concept similar to the Catholic concept of Saints) to designate another group of Muslims who contradicted this notion. It's a history lesson that people who use this pejorative usually do not know.
As for Shiites, I know full well that not every Shiite is the same. Which is why I singled out the Twelvers amongst them, which is a group with extremist views.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, for the people who missed my previous comments, this is not something anyone may do out of their own accord. Someone may be sentenced to death by a judge in a court of law, and that's the end of it. You can disagree with apostasy from Islam being strictly prohibited under an Islamic state, and it may even be contrary to some "universal freedoms" formulated by people, but it's hardly murder.
By the same token, if I disagree with the killing of Osama bin Laden, I could call the soldiers who did it murderers.
He should be given time and help to resolve his doubts about Islam, but if he still refuses, he needs to be put to death. Although this is something that rarely happens, if at all. I have yet to see a real apostate who isn't a complete idiot or a liar.
Frame of reference... like, uh, the Milky Way? Hmmm
I'll name just one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies
Sorry for not giving this my full attention at first.
Yes, it's not mentioned, but if you know the history of the situation, you will see this revelation in perspective.
The Muslims had a treaty with the people of Medina. Unfortunately, some tribes broke the treaty a number of times, one of the people who broke the treaty was Ka'b ibn al Ashrak, who made a deal with the Meccan polytheists to fight against the Muslims, while making obscene poetry to defame Islam in Medina. Then this verse was revealed, which prohibited the Muslims from replying to any of this, binding them by the treaty, even though some of those non-Muslim tribes transgressed.
There's a lot more to it and the issue of inheritance really isn't what started this.
We're talking about the leader of the Islamic state here. After the death of the prophet (pbuh) the senior companions (including 'Ali) voted for who should be the new leader, and they voted unanimously for Abu Bakr. Then when Abu Bakr died, they voted for the next leader to be 'Omar. And after that, 'Uthman. It was only after the reign of 'Omar that the trouble started. A group of thugs from Egypt came to kill 'Uthman, although 'Uthman was very willing to reconsile with them, because they had some valid concerns. After that, most of the remaining companions urged 'Ali to become the new rules, but he repeatedly refused, as he didn't want to carry that burden. When he was finally convinced, there was a group of his followers, most prominent of whom was 'Abdullah bin Saba, who incited him against other companions, and then the battle of the camel happened.
'Ali later prosecuted this group in a harsh way. Those who remained formed Shiism, and now they proclaim that 'Ali should have been the leader all along, while we're not even doubting his leadership skills, we just think the 3 who went before him were a bit more suited to be leaders.
The extremist shiites will say that this account of history is based completely on lies, but unfortunately for them, their main history source (Al Kaafi) is known to be pretty unreliable, and they acknowledge that.
I won't debate idiots like you.
As for Islam's "crimes" (I presume you meant crimes perpetrated by Muslims) why don't you name some mistreatment of women? Please, enlighten me. Last time I checked (and that's... every day), my wife loves me and doesn't think I mistreat her.
As for wahhabies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbism#Naming_controversy:_Wahhabism_and_Salafism
I rest my case. Nuance is something not everybody likes, I realize that.
Sure, that's common practice in warfare, isn't it? That poet, Ka'b ibn al Ashraf, also chose to be a part of a war against the Muslims, as he made a treaty with the Meccan polytheists to this end. So his killing was also an act of warfare.
In any case, Islam strictly prohibit murder, rape, stealing and lying. Whether the perpetrator is a Muslim or not, whether the victim is Muslim or not.
Warfare is an exception, and as I understand it Ghandi is no more. Every nation in the world allows killing hostile soldiers during war.
Of course Allah is omnipotent. But being able to create something that you cannot then un-create (or something) is something which is inherently illogical. This example, to me, compares to the Christian belief in Jesus as God-incarnate.
I didn't check every Islamic claim to be true, seeing as this is impractical. Before I became convinced that there has to be a creator, I already knew enough about Islam and other religions to have a reasonably well-founded opinion. But even as a fresh convert, I could easily switch to another religion, no peer pressure keeping me stuck in Islam... but in the following months, while I was learning my religion more thoroughly (specifically focusing on claims more than on dogma), I didn't. I just became more convinced that I had made the right decision. It was only after 11 months that I felt comfortable enough to go to the mosque, so I had plenty of time to reconsider. But I never did. 6 years later, I'm starting to understand Arabic pretty well, and it only makes me understand Islam better and appreciate it more.
Just because women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia (which I oppose) doesn't mean they aren't allowed to travel. They can travel just fine by taxi and by aeroplane.
I don't know about this particular issue, but...
Really? Is the sun stationary? I was always under the impression that it was in an orbit around the center of the Milky Way. I dunno, could be wrong...
Not really. People may believe anything under an Islamic state, there's just an issue with people converting to Islam with the intention of fighting it from the inside. And the simplest way to deter people from doing so is such a law.
And again, laws don't necessarily mean prosecution, prosecution doesn't necessarily mean suficient evidence is provided which leads to a sentence, a sentence which can easily be circumvented in this case.
As for the beginning of the chapter, maybe you missed this verse (emphasis mine):
How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]
What does that tell you? That this is talking about a specific group of polytheists; those of Mecca who fought against the Muslims from the very beginning. It also mentions another group of polytheists, who made a treaty with the Muslims on the day of Hudaibiyyah, which they didn't break. It should also be mentioned that after the conquest of Mecca (which was completely without a fight), the Meccan polytheists were allowed to live in Mecca freely for 4 months, before the end of which the vast majority of them converted.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Instead of making silly assumptions which just make you look bad, you could always argue in a normal way. Anyway, I just did a quick search... I think you can understand that I have to divide my time to address all the comments in this thread, as I appear to be the only Muslim here...
I just wonder how many more quotes you need to understand that your presumption is wrong?
Do they not know that it is Allah who accepts repentance from His servants and receives charities and that it is Allah who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful?
9:104
When can we get that building permit for a mosque in the Vatican? Or in some parts of Israel?
Yes that would be a problem, but only if someone chooses to press charges though. Corporal punishment in an Islamic state doesn't necessarily come with strong enforcement and prosecution. It mostly serves as a deterrent inherently. Furthermore, if someone is determined guilty by an Islamic court of apostasy, the convicted has three days in jail to repent. If he becomes Muslim again, he's freed as if nothing happened. From this, follows that if he doesn't want to do that at all, he can just pretend to and flee the country after... Nobody will come after him
You could argue that this is harsh, but it is a deterrent for people who proclaim their Islam only to fight it from the inside and to try to deviate others from it. This is something that happened a number of times in the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Zoroastrianism is anything BUT a monotheist religion and Judaism doesn't have their original holy books. Those were long since lost. And Islam teaches me that those books were abrogated by the Quran, which by the way contains many stories of - and references to previous prophets.
You're begging the question... but I'll reply anyway.
Here's just one of the many quotes:
(He turned in mercy also) to the three who were left behind; (they felt guilty) to such a degree that the earth seemed constrained to them, for all its spaciousness, and their (very) souls seemed straitened to them,- and they perceived that there is no fleeing from Allah (and no refuge) but to Himself. Then He turned to them, that they might repent: for Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
9:118
The reason is that the parent of my comment was talking about taqiyyah, which is a concept of Twelver Shiism.
That is talking about forgiving crimes... what's your point?
In Islam we don't listen to any lunatic proclaiming stuff. There are sciences with defined methodologies, and there are scientists or scholars who debate religious issues, which is much like peer-reviewing in modern science.
It's hard to explain.
For one, Islam is the purest form of monotheism. The Christian concept of a Trinity has always been a reason for me to reject it, not in the least because I don't find it logical. How can an omnipotent being create a rock, which is too heavy for him to lift, or live in a body which leaves him powerless? It's an inherent contradiction. Or is he the begotten son of god? There are so many issues with this too.
Our holy book is still in its original form, leave cosmetic changes, of course. This can be verified by some of the remaining manuscripts of (what's probably) the original compilation. Its simplicity also appealed to me, as opposed to an excessive amount of metaphor, which is another issue I have with Christianity.
This just scratches the surface, of course. But you can find quite a few pretty famous converts who told their story online, some of which are rather interesting. If you're sincerely interested, I advise you to watch some of them.
Except when those extremist views contradict the fundamentals...
You don't know what you are talking about at all. First of all, there is no such thing as "wahhabis". This is a term used as a pejorative by a group of Muslims (who have a concept similar to the Catholic concept of Saints) to designate another group of Muslims who contradicted this notion. It's a history lesson that people who use this pejorative usually do not know.
As for Shiites, I know full well that not every Shiite is the same. Which is why I singled out the Twelvers amongst them, which is a group with extremist views.